It's about time.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

It's about time.

Post by uwot »

As most of you know, I write the occasional article for Philosophy Now. I might have mentioned it, once or twice. Anyway, I sent them another one the other day, so perhaps in a year or so it might get published. In the meantime, here's a preview of the draft I sent in. Even if it is accepted, it's unlikely to go out without a few changes, so feel free to comment/criticise.


It’s about time.

In 1905, Albert Einstein published 4 papers so groundbreaking that 1905 is known as his annus mirabilis; or in English, his miracle year. It was in the third of those papers, which has the unpromising title "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, that Einstein introduced the idea for which he is best known - Relativity.

In this article I’m going to concentrate on one of the most famous and most misunderstood predictions of relativity. You might have heard that according to relativity the faster you are going, the slower time passes for you.

So there’s a few elements to that claim which it would help to clarify. There’s the idea that motion affects time and then right at the end there’s the ‘for you’ bit. It’s that last bit which is the essence of relativity, but since it’s the last bit, I want to deal with the time and motion bit first.

On the face of it, it sounds ridiculous; why should the speed you are going at make any difference to how much time passes? Surely time and motion are two completely different things, so how on earth could one affect the other? Weird as it seems though, experiments show that Einstein was right, and the key to making sense of this weirdness is to understand that time and motion aren’t as different as they seem.

Think about a unit of time, a year for example. Because of the way that we use language, we say that the time it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun is one year. That way of saying it tricks us into thinking that there is an amount of time called ‘a year’ and by coincidence, it also happens to be the amount of time that it takes the earth to go around the Sun. But the idea that a year is unit of time that exists independently of the Sun and Earth is misleading, because the Earth going around the Sun is a year. If the earth went round the sun faster or slower, then a year would be different. It might have had fewer or more days in it; but then a day is just the earth spinning once on its axis.

So now we have two units of time to compare: a year and a day. We can say that a year is 365 times longer than a day. Which again reinforces this idea that time is something other than motion, but all we are actually measuring at this scale is the Earth spinning slightly more than 365 times as it makes one orbit of the sun - there’s nothing abstract there at all; no universal or objective ‘time’.

Now, that’s the sort of time we measure on a calendar. But of course there is also the sort of time we measure on a clock. Hours, minutes and seconds. None of these units correspond to any particular natural event that happens regularly in the way that days and years do. Hours, minutes and seconds are simply a day divided into smaller and smaller units, so they’re basically mathematical things; fractions of a day.

In order for a clock to work, it has to be able to count regular events which only take a small fraction of a day. A major breakthrough happened when Galileo Galilei noticed that if the chandelier in the Cathedral of Padua was swinging a lot it moved fast, and if it was only swinging a little bit, then it moved slowly. What Galileo discovered was that no matter how much the chandelier swung, it always took the same time. The story is that Galileo used his own heartbeat to time the chandelier, but as with days and years, it’s not directly time that is being measured, Galileo was counting the number of heartbeats per swing.

Using his discovery, Galileo designed a pendulum clock. In fact, being old and blind he had to describe the design to his son Vincenzo, who did the actual drawing. They even started to make a clock, but they both died before it was completed. Even so, clocks based on the same principle were the most accurate clocks until electronic clocks were invented in the 1930’s. These days atomic clocks are accurate to within a second every few hundred million years. So no excuses for being late.

In effect an atomic clock works by shining light on an atom and counting the number of times it absorbs and emits photons; which are little bundles of light. Time is defined by this effect. A second is, and I quote: "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom”

So when you are doing something like boiling an egg you do so for about the duration of 300 billion periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom, depending on how you like your eggs. Or about 5 minutes, which is a lot easier to say, but however you time your egg, you will be counting things that are moving.

To return to the point: clocks don’t directly measure any such thing as time, fundamentally they are counting devices and to all intents and purposes the practical definition of time is ‘what clocks measure’.

That’s time and motion; onto the ‘for you’ bit. As I said, that is the basis of relativity and, wouldn’t you know it, it’s Galileo again.

You may know that Galileo was involved in a controversy about whether the Earth is moving or not. The fact that he refused to say the Earth is motionless got him into trouble with the Vatican. Leaving aside the politics and theology, the scientific argument for a stationary earth went back almost 2000 years to Aristotle in Ancient Greece. Aristotle pointed out that if you drop a stone, it lands at your feet and he reasoned that if the earth were moving, then if you dropped a stone, it would land as far from your feet as the earth had moved in the time it took the stone to fall. Now intuitively that makes a lot of sense.

Since Galileo was convinced the Earth is moving, he had to demonstrate that stones would nevertheless fall straight down. What he did was point out that if you are on a ship that is moving smoothly, it feels exactly the same as if it were docked and in fact everything happens exactly as if the ship were stationary. Everyone is familiar with this effect. Whether you are in a car doing 50mph, a train doing a 100mph or an aeroplane doing 500mph, if you drop a stone it falls at your feet. For you, the stone falls straight down.

However, someone watching you go past sees something different. Suppose I’m on the platform as you drop a stone on a moving train. We both agree that the stone falls a certain height, but while as far as you are concerned the stone falls vertically, to me on the platform, it has also moved horizontally. How the train is moving relative to the person watching the stone drop, changes what they see.

So, you might ask, how is the stone really moving? Fair enough. Well, the stone is on a moving train, but the train is on Earth, and Earth is spinning as it orbits the sun, and the sun is in a galaxy that is cartwheeling through the universe, and that universe is expanding. All of that movement makes it impossible to work out how the stone is actually moving - there is no absolute measure, no signpost relative to which everything else is moving. All you can do is pick a point and say how the stone is moving relative to that point.

No matter how fast you are going, so long as it smoothly: no accelerating, no braking and no going around bends, if you drop a stone, it will fall at your feet. Inside your bubble, be it a car, train or plane, absolutely everything looks exactly the same whether you are moving or not. And that is Galileo’s Principle of Relativity.

In the late 19th century, it was thought there might be an exception to this rule; and it is a possibility that intrigued a certain Albert Einstein. Earlier in the century, the Scottish physicist James Clark Maxwell had shown that the speed of light is roughly 186 000 miles per second. Which is fast enough to go round the world more than 7 times - in one second.

But suppose for the sake of argument you have a spaceship that can travel at the speed of light. You also have a mirror that you hold in front you, in the direction the spaceship is moving. The question is what would happen to your reflection? What normally happens is that light is reflected off your face, onto the mirror which then reflects the light back into your eyes and you see your image in the mirror.

Now light, not surprisingly, travels at the speed of light. So if your spaceship is travelling at the speed of light, the light reflected off your face would have to travel faster than the speed of light to reach the mirror. But it is light, and it travels at the speed of light, so it’s not going to reach the mirror, and in theory, the image, your reflection, should disappear.

So what? Well, it means that there is an instance of smooth travelling in which things look different, so Galileo’s principle of relativity would be broken. Most people would think, ‘Hm, so there’s an exception. Oh well.’ Einstein however, wondered what you would have to do to preserve the Principle of Relativity. The obvious suggestion is to say that the speed of light isn’t fixed, but one of the premises of Special Relativity is that the speed of light is as fast as anything can go. So, another approach is to say what if the reflection does disappear, but you don't notice?

Well, your not going to miss something like your reflection disappearing, except perhaps if you are frozen in time. Which sounds like gobbledygook. But Einstein did the maths and it all added up. Fortunately for those of us who aren’t great at maths, he also explained how it could be demonstrated using a thought experiment.

To do that, he came up with the idea of a light clock. Like all clocks, Einstein’s light clock counts things which are moving. What he imagined were two mirrors one above the other, arranged so that a pulse of light would bounce up and down between them and those bounces could be counted.

Just as with dropping a stone, if you have a light clock with you in your car, on a train or aeroplane, as far as you are concerned, the pulse of light bounces vertically up and down. But to someone watching you go past, the pulse of light travels a bit horizontally as well, so the overall path is diagonal. In other words, the pulse of light has to travel further between the mirrors. And the faster the vehicle is going, the further the light has to travel, which means the longer it takes to bounce between the mirrors.

The result is that the light clock ticks slower and slower as you accelerate, until in your hypothetical light speed spaceship the pulse of light stops bouncing between the mirrors altogether, because the light is going as fast as it can in the same direction as the spaceship. As far as a clock on the space ship is concerned, time has stopped.

So why wouldn't you notice? How is Galileo’s Principle of Relativity preserved? Well, the speed of light is as fast as anything can go. And just as the light in the light clock is going as fast as it can in the same direction as the spaceship, every atom in your body is doing the same, so there’s no interaction between the atoms and molecules in your body - no biological processes, no mental processes - your body doesn’t age and your brain doesn’t think. There’s no image of you in the mirror, and you don’t even know it. For you time stops.

What about for everyone else though? Well, time passes for them at a rate that is dependent on how fast they are moving compared to the speed of light. But remember, however fast you are moving, it feels the same as if you were standing still. Stones fall at your feet and the pulse of light in your light clock bounces straight up and down. It is everyone else who, relative to you, is moving. And that has an apparently paradoxical consequence.
Suppose when you dropped a stone as I watched from the platform that I too had dropped a stone. Now we intuitively feel that it is you on the train that is moving, but imagine your train is heading off into the sunset. So relative to me stuck on the platform, you are moving due west. But as you rattle along, the Sun is still going down and that’s because the Earth is spinning eastwards faster than you are moving westwards, so relative to the Sun, you are moving eastwards. Just not quite as fast as me.


Back in the railway station, how we are moving relative to the sun has no effect on how we see each other’s stone falling, we both see the other’s stone move horizontally by exactly the same amount. And the same is true about our light clocks, we both see each others pulse of light move horizontally, and therefore, weirdly, we both see each others clock tick more slowly. If we never get to compare our clocks, we would never know who had been travelling the faster; and if the train carries on in a straight line, it will never get back to the station. But, you might say, if the train keeps heading west, it will eventually get back to where it started. True, but it will have gone around the world. In other words, not in a straight line

So Imagine that your train is going round in a circle, in the middle of which is me with my light clock. In that case you would see my pulse of light bounce straight up and down. I on the other hand would still see your pulse of light move horizontally, so I would see your clock ticking slower than my clock, which means you would see my clock tick faster than yours. But going round in circles isn’t the smooth motion of special relativity, so no rules are broken; and in fact experiments confirm that time does slow down the faster you are going, although to be clear, we should remember that strictly speaking, clocks tick fewer times the faster they are going.

In 1971, scientists Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating, conducted a simple demonstration. They got some atomic clocks, put them on a commercial jet liner, and flew them round the world twice. Once heading eastwards and once westwards. When they compared their clocks with a clock that stayed on the ground, they showed different times. When the clocks flew eastwards, they lost time compared to the clock on the ground, whereas when they flew westwards they gained time. Which sounds crazy, but it’s the same effect as when you are riding into the sunset.

In the Hafele-Keating experiment, when the clocks flew westwards, they were still moving east relative to the sun, but not as much as the clock on the ground, and even less compared to when the clocks flew eastwards. So rather than thinking that the clocks flying westwards gained time and those flying east lost time, it’s slightly less mind bending to think that compared to when the clocks flew westwards the clock on the ground lost time, and that when they flew eastwards, they lost even more time.

So it has been shown that clocks really do slow down the faster they are moving. So do all the processes that give rise to life and consciousness which, somewhat metaphorically, we can describe as time slowing down. Why then did it take until 1971 for someone to prove it? Well, even at 500mph, about the speed of a commercial jet, the effect is tiny. Think about that stone falling. Suppose it falls for half a second. At 500mph in half a second the plane will have flown a little over a hundred metres, so to someone watching from outside the plane, the diagonal path of the falling stone is very clear. However, in that same half a second, the light pulse will have travelled 93 thousand miles, so instead of there being one very obviously diagonal path, as for the stone, the beam of light will have bounced up and down hundreds of millions of times, so the amount the plane has moved forward for each bounce is a fraction of a millimetre; so the extra distance the pulse of light has to travel is tiny, hence the slowing of the clock is tiny. Despite flying all the way round the world, the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment were measured in nanoseconds, billionths of a second. But when you have clocks which are accurate to within a second every few hundred million years, that’s not a problem.

One of the things that is most often misunderstood about Special Relativity is that it is about what you see, rather than what really is the case. Remember that no one can tell how things are actually moving, all that anyone can say is how much something is moving relative to a point of their choosing. And while it is only relative to that point that we can tell that time is moving faster or slower, it is a demonstrable fact that time really is affected by speed. Just as Einstein predicted
Impenitent
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Impenitent »

very nice article...

it demonstrates that measuring devices show different results according to their motion...

do the space and time themselves actually change? are they always local events? do "universal" space and time appear to be beyond measure?

necessarily separate events based on unique observers and observations...

raising more questions again... (I still think time is a Swiss conspiracy designed to sell watches)

-Imp
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

Impenitent wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:55 pm very nice article...
Thank you.
Impenitent wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:55 pmit demonstrates that measuring devices show different results according to their motion...

do the space and time themselves actually change? are they always local events? do "universal" space and time appear to be beyond measure?

necessarily separate events based on unique observers and observations...

raising more questions again...
Yeah. Who knows? We mortals can only see so far, which does kinda localise our perspective. The problem I have with absolute time and space being affected by our parochial toing and froing is how could a bit of movement or gravity affect something that encompasses the whole of everything?
Impenitent wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:55 pm(I still think time is a Swiss conspiracy designed to sell watches)
Could be. It's one way to launder all that Nazi gold.
seeds
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by seeds »

Impenitent wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:55 pm it demonstrates that measuring devices show different results according to their motion...

do the space and time themselves actually change? are they always local events? do "universal" space and time appear to be beyond measure?

necessarily separate events based on unique observers and observations...

raising more questions again...
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 6:59 am Yeah. Who knows? We mortals can only see so far, which does kinda localise our perspective. The problem I have with absolute time and space being affected by our parochial toing and froing is how could a bit of movement or gravity affect something that encompasses the whole of everything?
I personally believe that there actually exists a condition of absolute universal time that by-passes the light-speed induced situation of relativity.

As you already know, I am a bit obsessive when it comes to promoting the concept of the interpenetrating “oneness” of the informational underpinning of the universe.

In other words, I believe that every “material” phenomenon is instantaneously connected to every other material phenomenon via quantum entanglement.

I even created a thought experiment (in the form of an illustration) where I jammed a probe into the earth (although the probe itself would have been sufficient) in order to connect with the rest of the universe via the “spooky action at a distance” phenomenon...

...(in a sort of virtual access to the entire universal wavefunction).

Furthermore, the probe is connected to a holographic camera (a camera with a shutter speed of Planck time) that could create a snapshot (a “holoroid” picture, if you will, made of light) that shows the precise position of every object throughout the entire universe as they existed relative to each other during one instant of Planck time.

Yeah, I know it’s pretty wild (hence the need to present it as a thought experiment).

However, if it is indeed a possibility that everything is connected via the instantaneousness of quantum entanglement (at the “non-local” level of reality),...

...then by reason of that instantaneous interconnection, it’s not that big of a stretch to imagine the existence of a commonly shared instant of universal time that establishes the absolute simultaneity of events taking place, again, via the “spooky action at a distance” phenomenon occurring at a deeper level of reality.

And that would be in contrast to the non-simultaneity of events occurring up at the “local” level of reality (as witnessed by observers) due to the limited speed of light.

(Uh, oh! I think I see some men in white coats coming at me. And they've got a net. I'll talk to ya later... :D)
_______
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by surreptitious57 »

uwot wrote:
the speed of light is as fast as anything can go . And just as the light in the light clock is going as fast as it can in the same direction as the spaceship every atom in your body is doing the same so theres no interaction between the atoms and molecules in your body - no biological processes no mental processes
The atoms in your body would have disintegrated into protons and neutrons and electrons before light speed was attained
And they themselves would have disintegrated after c was attained as they have mass and so can not travel at light speed
The atoms disintegrating in your brain would render cognition impossible so there would definitely be no mental processes

The only way you could travel at c would be if the mass of your body was converted into electromagnetic energy in the form of photons
But this would still be impossible because it would require infinite energy which is greater than the total energy content of the Universe
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:18 pmThe atoms in your body would have disintegrated into protons and neutrons and electrons before light speed was attained
Well, in a 3000 word article you have to choose what to leave out. You're right though; travelling at near light speeds is not without its hazards and perhaps I should warn readers not to try it at home.
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:03 pmAs you already know, I am a bit obsessive when it comes to promoting the concept of the interpenetrating “oneness” of the informational underpinning of the universe.

In other words, I believe that every “material” phenomenon is instantaneously connected to every other material phenomenon via quantum entanglement.
Yeah. Omniscience gets harder to swallow the bigger the universe gets, but that might be one way of doing it. It's a lovely idea and who knows?
seeds wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:03 pm(Uh, oh! I think I see some men in white coats coming at me. And they've got a net. I'll talk to ya later... :D)
That's just a flashback. The bad news is they caught all of us in the late 60's and have been spiking the water supply ever since.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by AlexW »

uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pmIt’s about time.
Nice article - I enjoyed reading it.

I agree, time is a nothing but the relationship of one movement A (eg: the "transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" or simply one movement of the pendulum of a grandfather clock) to another movement B (eg: the movement of the earth around the sun) – its all about how many movements/cycles of A fit into B.

What I find interesting is that to measure unidirectional movement, we always use a certain number of recurring, cyclical movements (eg so and so many swings of a pendulum) as a base of reference.
Whats important: the movement of the reference system (eg pendulum) has to come to a full stop and change direction - only then can it be used successfully as a reference system.

But this raises an even more interesting question:
What exactly happens at standstill, at speed zero, the point where the pendulum is motionless before it moves into the other direction?
Some believe that this standstill - a speed of absolute zero, of no motion at all - is the same as infinite speed - which again is the actual, underlying "glue" or essence of it all (thus also making Einsteins's "spooky action at a distance" possible - as it happens outside of time - which actually means: outside of objective movement/existence)
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

AlexW wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:28 amNice article - I enjoyed reading it.
Thank you.
AlexW wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:28 amWhat exactly happens at standstill, at speed zero, the point where the pendulum is motionless before it moves into the other direction?
Well, as I wrote in the article the pendulum "is on Earth, and Earth is spinning as it orbits the sun, and the sun is in a galaxy that is cartwheeling through the universe, and that universe is expanding." For the pendulum to be at absolute standstill, it has to be in a place of absolute standstill. If we could find that, then all bets are off.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by AlexW »

uwot wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:54 am Well, as I wrote in the article the pendulum "is on Earth, and Earth is spinning as it orbits the sun, and the sun is in a galaxy that is cartwheeling through the universe, and that universe is expanding." For the pendulum to be at absolute standstill, it has to be in a place of absolute standstill. If we could find that, then all bets are off.
You wouldn't be able to find it - as absolute standstill removes whatever you are looking at from objective existence. It winks out into non existence and "merges with" the absolute. It becomes - one could say -, at this tiny fraction of a second, omnipresent.

Mass (objects), as I see it, is nothing but cyclical movement, or rather energetic vibration. Even light moves in the form of electromagnetic waves - it oscillates, no matter if it, at the same time, moves into a specific "direction" - and with every change of direction of the oscillation, it comes to a brief, absolute stand-still.

Look at the waves of the ocean. Waves are actually energy passing through the water. There is nothing substantial that travels from A to B, its only the energetic pattern that moves through the ocean - its the oscillating frequency pattern that moves, not matter - and ultimately its the same with everything... cars, planes, earth, sun, galaxies. There are no moving objects at all.
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

AlexW wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:29 pmYou wouldn't be able to find it - as absolute standstill removes whatever you are looking at from objective existence. It winks out into non existence and "merges with" the absolute. It becomes - one could say -, at this tiny fraction of a second, omnipresent.
Well yes, you could say that; you'd have a job proving it though.
AlexW wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:29 pmMass (objects), as I see it, is nothing but cyclical movement, or rather energetic vibration.
Erwin Schrödinger put it like this: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." Quantum field theory is the idea that the universe is made of some actual 'stuff'. Exactly what this stuff is no one knows, but yeah, there are shapes and patterns in this stuff that correspond to sub atomic particles and electromagnetic radiation, and which almost certainly involve vibrations.
AlexW wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:29 pmEven light moves in the form of electromagnetic waves - it oscillates, no matter if it, at the same time, moves into a specific "direction" - and with every change of direction of the oscillation, it comes to a brief, absolute stand-still.
Electromagnetic waves aren't strictly light (or anything else on the spectrum). What they are is the variations in the electric and magnetic fields that occur when photons pass through them. They are measurable effects caused by passing objects. The photons themselves move in straight lines (or at least follow geodesics, if you want to get into general relativity).
AlexW wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:29 pmLook at the waves of the ocean. Waves are actually energy passing through the water. There is nothing substantial that travels from A to B, its only the energetic pattern that moves through the ocean - its the oscillating frequency pattern that moves, not matter - and ultimately its the same with everything... cars, planes, earth, sun, galaxies. There are no moving objects at all.
Well, if you allow that there are oscillations in some stuff, be it a quantum field, inflaton, aether, apeiron, the absolute or whatever, then it seems to me that there could be oscillations analogous to ocean waves (although closer to sound waves, because you really need a surface, or a string for traverse waves). They would be your em radiation. The could also be things analogous to eddies and whirlpools which would constitute what manifest as particles. Put enough of those together and you get things like cars and planes, but yeah, they're not made of anything that is solidly 'material'.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by AlexW »

uwot wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:14 am The could also be things analogous to eddies and whirlpools which would constitute what manifest as particles. Put enough of those together and you get things like cars and planes, but yeah, they're not made of anything that is solidly 'material'.
Yes... agree.

Now, if everything were really only an "interference pattern" with "solid material" only being a certain focussed whirlpool of overlapping waves/frequencies, then what exactly are we measuring when an object moves from A to B?
Aren't we only measuring a ghost-like apparition? Something that seems to be there, but – the closer we look – has no solidity at all...

It seems to me that all we do is measure the velocity of an object on a TV screen as it moves from A to B, while, in reality, all that actually happens is a shifting of colours on the screen... the maximum velocity that an object can travel, when moving continuously from A to B – covering every single pixel between these distant points – is limited only by the maximum refresh rate of the screen.
Thus we find that an object's maximum speed is defined by this maximum refresh rate ... this velocity, in our case, might be the speed of light...
But... what happens if the object doesn't travel in such a continuous fashion? What if it simply appears at A and - in the "next instance" at B?
It would have travelled much faster than light, it would be "nearly" instantaneous...

Now replace the word "object" with "information" (as objects don't travel, its only "information" - a specific "interference pattern" - that is present or not present...)
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm As most of you know, I write the occasional article for Philosophy Now. I might have mentioned it, once or twice. Anyway, I sent them another one the other day, so perhaps in a year or so it might get published. In the meantime, here's a preview of the draft I sent in. Even if it is accepted, it's unlikely to go out without a few changes, so feel free to comment/criticise.


It’s about time.

In 1905, Albert Einstein published 4 papers so groundbreaking that 1905 is known as his annus mirabilis; or in English, his miracle year. It was in the third of those papers, which has the unpromising title "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, that Einstein introduced the idea for which he is best known - Relativity.

In this article I’m going to concentrate on one of the most famous and most misunderstood predictions of relativity. You might have heard that according to relativity the faster you are going, the slower time passes for you.
All that needs to be done to correct this is just write: The faster you are going, the slower time 'appears' to pass for you. Thus, the reference to 'relativity'.

Because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, and the fact that time is 'relative' to light, or, maybe more correctly, 'relative to the speed of light', so the fact is the faster that an observer is traveling, then what is generally referred to as 'time' just appears only slower, to 'you'.

This can be backed up and supported with evidence, and with proof.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So there’s a few elements to that claim which it would help to clarify. There’s the idea that motion affects time and then right at the end there’s the ‘for you’ bit. It’s that last bit which is the essence of relativity, but since it’s the last bit, I want to deal with the time and motion bit first.

On the face of it, it sounds ridiculous; why should the speed you are going at make any difference to how much time passes?
This would only sound ridiculous if one has a ridiculous notion of what 'time' is.

Remember absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, if some thing sounds/appears ridiculous, then this would be because of some ridiculous notion/view, of, or to, the observer.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Surely time and motion are two completely different things, so how on earth could one affect the other? Weird as it seems though, experiments show that Einstein was right, and the key to making sense of this weirdness is to understand that time and motion aren’t as different as they seem.
Supposedly experiments show that "einstein" was, so called, "right" about 'what', exactly?

Remember the, so called, "scientists" who do those experiments openly admit that they do not know what 'time' is, yet. They obviously have NOT YET come to an agreement on what 'time' is. So, for you to say and claim that you know HOW to "make sense of things here" by understanding 'time' is one giant leap forward above "others".
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Think about a unit of time, a year for example. Because of the way that we use language, we say that the time it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun is one year. That way of saying it tricks us into thinking that there is an amount of time called ‘a year’ and by coincidence, it also happens to be the amount of time that it takes the earth to go around the Sun.
Are there REALLY some human beings, in this philosophy forum, who actually think that it is just a 'coincidence' that a 'year' is called "a year", and the duration it takes the earth to travel around the sun and come back to a 'relative' same position just happens to be the same?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm But the idea that a year is unit of time that exists independently of the Sun and Earth is misleading, because the Earth going around the Sun is a year.
But does anyone actually think this?

If so, then this explains a lot about the reasons for a lot of the confusion, and the continual seeking of answers, which 'you', human beings, appear to have, and seek.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm If the earth went round the sun faster or slower, then a year would be different. It might have had fewer or more days in it; but then a day is just the earth spinning once on its axis.
This is because what 'time' is actually measured from, and by.

Absolutely EVERY thing is 'relative', and 'relativity' just refers to the observer, and/or their position.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So now we have two units of time to compare: a year and a day. We can say that a year is 365 times longer than a day. Which again reinforces this idea that time is something other than motion, but all we are actually measuring at this scale is the Earth spinning slightly more than 365 times as it makes one orbit of the sun - there’s nothing abstract there at all; no universal or objective ‘time’.
You appear to have a very specific notion of what 'time' is, correct?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Now, that’s the sort of time we measure on a calendar. But of course there is also the sort of time we measure on a clock. Hours, minutes and seconds. None of these units correspond to any particular natural event that happens regularly in the way that days and years do.
But, to me, they do.

They correspond, EXACTLY, with what the other units correspond with. They ALL correspond with the actual natural event, which is how 'time' came about, in the beginning.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Hours, minutes and seconds are simply a day divided into smaller and smaller units, so they’re basically mathematical things; fractions of a day.
If this is your type of "argument", then days and years could also be basically mathematical fractions of other things, like decades, centuries, and/or millenniums.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm In order for a clock to work, it has to be able to count regular events which only take a small fraction of a day.
But clocks do NOT work by "counting" 'regular events'. Clocks work because they are just made, by human beings, to "tick" at regular intervals.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm A major breakthrough happened when Galileo Galilei noticed that if the chandelier in the Cathedral of Padua was swinging a lot it moved fast, and if it was only swinging a little bit, then it moved slowly. What Galileo discovered was that no matter how much the chandelier swung, it always took the same time. The story is that Galileo used his own heartbeat to time the chandelier, but as with days and years, it’s not directly time that is being measured, Galileo was counting the number of heartbeats per swing.
This is because 'time', itself, can NOT be measured. This is because of what 'times' ACTUALLY IS.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Using his discovery, Galileo designed a pendulum clock. In fact, being old and blind he had to describe the design to his son Vincenzo, who did the actual drawing. They even started to make a clock, but they both died before it was completed. Even so, clocks based on the same principle were the most accurate clocks until electronic clocks were invented in the 1930’s. These days atomic clocks are accurate to within a second every few hundred million years. So no excuses for being late.

In effect an atomic clock works by shining light on an atom and counting the number of times it absorbs and emits photons; which are little bundles of light. Time is defined by this effect.
'Time' is ONLY defined by some people, by this effect.

'Time' is defined in other ways, by "other" people.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm A second is, and I quote: "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom”
A second also was, and still is, to some, just a fraction of other things, which just, (coincidentally?), coincides with: "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom”.

And, by the way, this ALL fits in, more perfectly now, with how I define the word 'time', and with what 'time' relates to, exactly.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So when you are doing something like boiling an egg you do so for about the duration of 300 billion periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom, depending on how you like your eggs. Or about 5 minutes, which is a lot easier to say, but however you time your egg, you will be counting things that are moving.
Or, when i boil an egg i do it for the duration that i like.

I do not boil an egg for; "the duration of so many periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom". The duration of so many periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom may however just happen to pass for the same amount of duration/"time" of how long i boil an egg for.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm To return to the point: clocks don’t directly measure any such thing as time, fundamentally they are counting devices and to all intents and purposes the practical definition of time is ‘what clocks measure’.
So, to you clocks do NOT measure any such thing as 'time', but clocks are fundamentally just "counting devices", and for some reason this leads to the conclusion that, to you, the practical definition of 'time' is; 'what clocks measure'?

If this is correct, then okay.

But, if this is not correct, then what is?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm That’s time and motion; onto the ‘for you’ bit. As I said, that is the basis of relativity and, wouldn’t you know it, it’s Galileo again.
You really do appear, from my perspective, to have a VERY LOT more to learn, and understand.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm You may know that Galileo was involved in a controversy about whether the Earth is moving or not. The fact that he refused to say the Earth is motionless got him into trouble with the Vatican. Leaving aside the politics and theology, the scientific argument for a stationary earth went back almost 2000 years to Aristotle in Ancient Greece. Aristotle pointed out that if you drop a stone, it lands at your feet and he reasoned that if the earth were moving, then if you dropped a stone, it would land as far from your feet as the earth had moved in the time it took the stone to fall. Now intuitively that makes a lot of sense.
This did intuitively make a lot of sense at first glance and thought. But, then then on a second view and thought this does not intuitively make sense with 'relativity' or with a 'relative' perspective added on to it.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Since Galileo was convinced the Earth is moving, he had to demonstrate that stones would nevertheless fall straight down.
But this is doing things in the EXACT OPPOSITE way of what 'science' is meant to be all about. Anyway,
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm What he did was point out that if you are on a ship that is moving smoothly, it feels exactly the same as if it were docked and in fact everything happens exactly as if the ship were stationary. Everyone is familiar with this effect. Whether you are in a car doing 50mph, a train doing a 100mph or an aeroplane doing 500mph, if you drop a stone it falls at your feet. For you, the stone falls straight down.
Except for the fact that nothing is ACTUALLY "falling straight down". Again, EVERY thing is relative to the observer, and this is just a prime example of a 'relative' occurrence, to the, human being, observer.

And, by the way, do NOT let what I say trick you into assuming I am saying, or meaning, some 'thing', which I am NOT.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm However, someone watching you go past sees something different. Suppose I’m on the platform as you drop a stone on a moving train. We both agree that the stone falls a certain height, but while as far as you are concerned the stone falls vertically, to me on the platform, it has also moved horizontally.
But has it?

What is the ACTUAL Truth here?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm How the train is moving relative to the person watching the stone drop, changes what they see.
But I have, NOT YET ANYWAY, observed this, supposed, phenomena.

Have you observed this actually occur? If so, then what 'change' did you actually see, or think or believe you saw?

And, if you have NOT YET actually observed this, then what do you think or believe you would see?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So, you might ask, how is the stone really moving? Fair enough.
But how it is 'really' moving does not have much to do with what you are claiming here. But anyway,
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Well, the stone is on a moving train, but the train is on Earth, and Earth is spinning as it orbits the sun, and the sun is in a galaxy that is cartwheeling through the universe, and that universe is expanding.
LOL You really can NOT shake that BELIEF of yours that the Universe is expanding, right?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm All of that movement makes it impossible to work out how the stone is actually moving - there is no absolute measure, no signpost relative to which everything else is moving.
But this is only what you BELIEVE is true, which is NOT necessarily true at all, correct?

You have YET to even suggest how the stone APPEARS to be falling on a moving train, to 'you' on a train station platform, BEFORE you can start explaining just HOW you arrived at the conclusion that you have here.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm All you can do is pick a point and say how the stone is moving relative to that point.
But this is CERTAINLY NOT "all I can do".
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm No matter how fast you are going, so long as it smoothly: no accelerating, no braking and no going around bends, if you drop a stone, it will fall at your feet. Inside your bubble, be it a car, train or plane, absolutely everything looks exactly the same whether you are moving or not. And that is Galileo’s Principle of Relativity.
If you are traveling, smoothly, in a ship near to the speed of light and you drop a stone, where does the stone land?

Now, if you are traveling, smoothing, near the speed of light and your drop a stone, where does the stone land?

Do they LOOK 'exactly the same'?

There really is so much more for 'you', human beings, to learn, and understand. This is, literally, because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, and 'you', human beings, are only a tiny part of ALL-THERE-IS.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm In the late 19th century, it was thought there might be an exception to this rule; and it is a possibility that intrigued a certain Albert Einstein. Earlier in the century, the Scottish physicist James Clark Maxwell had shown that the speed of light is roughly 186 000 miles per second. Which is fast enough to go round the world more than 7 times - in one second.
And, as I have previously stated, and which no one has show any real curiosity about, depending on which direction you travel, at that speed, if you could, then this will effect whether you travel backwards or forwards in, what is called, "time".
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm But suppose for the sake of argument you have a spaceship that can travel at the speed of light. You also have a mirror that you hold in front you, in the direction the spaceship is moving. The question is what would happen to your reflection? What normally happens is that light is reflected off your face, onto the mirror which then reflects the light back into your eyes and you see your image in the mirror.
Yes that is what 'normally' happens. But, what you will try and do next is just repeat what you have been told 'would, or should, happen', and then use that to back up and support your already held belief here about some thing. Am I correct?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Now light, not surprisingly, travels at the speed of light. So if your spaceship is travelling at the speed of light, the light reflected off your face would have to travel faster than the speed of light to reach the mirror.
BUT, if a stone would drop at your feet and you can see your face in a mirror, at one mile per hour, or any speed, slower than the speed of light, if you are in a spaceship that can travel at the speed of light, then WHY, supposedly, if you are moving, smoothly, at just one more mile per hour faster, then things WITHIN the ship have to start moving faster than the speed of light.

'Relativity' states, things are, and thus move, 'relatively'.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm But it is light, and it travels at the speed of light, so it’s not going to reach the mirror, and in theory, the image, your reflection, should disappear.
But in this theory of yours, the mirror and the human being holding the mirror "should have" disappeared also, correct?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So what? Well, it means that there is an instance of smooth travelling in which things look different, so Galileo’s principle of relativity would be broken.
And what actual support, evidence and/or proof do you have that things "look different" when the speed of light is passed?

Why can things appear at or below the speed of light, but, seemingly, they just magically disappear at or beyond the speed of light?

If things just "magically", or "spookily", APPEAR at the quantum level, then could this imply or infer that this is because these things have been traveling at the speed of light, and have now just slowed down enough, to observe, and if, and when, they speed up again they just DISAPPEAR, once more. Is this is how 'entanglement' could actually occur, and happen?

Are you getting onto some thing here?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Most people would think, ‘Hm, so there’s an exception. Oh well.’ Einstein however, wondered what you would have to do to preserve the Principle of Relativity.
Again, like the other one above, this goes against what 'science' is meant to be, and be about. This is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of 'science'. But anyway,

If anyone is interested in knowing WHY, from my perspective, then surely you KNOW what to do NOW, correct?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm The obvious suggestion is to say that the speed of light isn’t fixed, but one of the premises of Special Relativity is that the speed of light is as fast as anything can go.
But this, so called, "premise" obviously is just an assumption, about what 'might be' true. This is obviously NOT an irrefutable fact, which is necessarily true.

This is just a premise, made up in support of and to support a theory.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So, another approach is to say what if the reflection does disappear, but you don't notice?
Now, you are getting into, so called, "spooky territory", for some.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Well, your not going to miss something like your reflection disappearing, except perhaps if you are frozen in time. Which sounds like gobbledygook. But Einstein did the maths and it all added up. Fortunately for those of us who aren’t great at maths, he also explained how it could be demonstrated using a thought experiment.
I find actual evidence AND proof far more appropriate rather than just thoughts, or thinking, alone. Also, maths alone does NOT proof this.

But, again, because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, and because of what 'time' actually IS, there is NO actual "freezing of time", anyway. Things just APPEAR the way they are, 'relative' to the observer, and where they are. All very simple and easy, really.

This can ALL be backed up and supported with actual EVIDENCE and PROOF, that is; IF any one is Truly interested.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm To do that, he came up with the idea of a light clock. Like all clocks, Einstein’s light clock counts things which are moving. What he imagined were two mirrors one above the other, arranged so that a pulse of light would bounce up and down between them and those bounces could be counted.

Just as with dropping a stone, if you have a light clock with you in your car, on a train or aeroplane, as far as you are concerned, the pulse of light bounces vertically up and down. But to someone watching you go past, the pulse of light travels a bit horizontally as well, so the overall path is diagonal.
But this has YET to be PROVEN. So far ALL you have done is just repeated what some people have THOUGHT happens.

Until I actually OBSERVE something, then I am NOT as easily led, as some "others" are.

Did you answer above what 'you' have actually OBSERVED, in the train scenario, or any other scenario, in this "thought experiment"?

If yes, then what did you ACTUALLY OBSERVE?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm In other words, the pulse of light has to travel further between the mirrors.
And, to me, this is WHERE this WHOLE theory falls apart.

WHERE is the ACTUAL 'has to travel further' perspective coming from EXACTLY?

Obviously you are just 'picking a point', and saying how things are 'relative' 'to that point'. You have also extrapolated that 'this point' is WHERE thee actual Truth of things IS, and will be found, correct?

If no, then WHY say the pulse of light 'HAS TO travel further between the mirrors'?

What actual 'logical reasoning' has led you to conclude that 'this' 'HAS TO HAPPEN'?

Is is just because this is what one person or some people are telling you is true? Or, is there some actual evidence AND proof that this is what 'HAS TO HAPPEN'?

If it is the latter, then will you PROVIDE that evidence and/or proof?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm And the faster the vehicle is going, the further the light has to travel, which means the longer it takes to bounce between the mirrors.
But ONLY 'relatively', which is obviously NOT 'absolutely'.

So, the perspective that light has to travel "further" is only 'relative' to some and NOT all, and, as such, and as I have been continually stating is NOT 'absolutely' true, AT ALL.

Even your own "logical reasoning" above explains and infers that the pulsating light is NOT necessarily traveling further at all.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm The result is that the light clock ticks slower and slower as you accelerate, until in your hypothetical light speed spaceship the pulse of light stops bouncing between the mirrors altogether, because the light is going as fast as it can in the same direction as the spaceship.
Who', EXACTLY, does this light clock, supposedly, tick slower and slower when accelerated?

Your own words above EXPLAINS WHERE the contradictions actually are, and HOW they actually came about. (Again, this is if anyone is Truly interested.)

Also, you had the mirrors above each other, in your above quoted words. Now, if the mirrors are 'in front' of each other facing the front and back of the ship, does this same phenomena occur? What about if the mirrors are facing the sides of the ship, does this change things around? All just more 'thought experiments', to consider.

See, 'thought experiments', themselves, are NOT evidence and do NOT proof any phenomena at all. They are just some thing to think about, and 'consider'.

What I observe, and see, from what you are writing is that you are actually discrediting your own beliefs and actually supporting further my views, and observations.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm As far as a clock on the space ship is concerned, time has stopped.
If you think clocks get concerned, then you have lost the plot.

Also, where does the stone ACTUALLY land, when dropped on a ship, traveling near the speed of light?

What I find overrides what people just think or observe in 'thought experiments' is 'what ACTUALLY DOES OCCUR' instead, which can ONLY HAPPEN in 'actual experiments'.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So why wouldn't you notice?
Just so you are AWARE most, if not all, adults would notice, and are actually going to miss, their reflection.

You also do NOT notice that "time has stopped" because 'time' does NOT stop in the sense that you are 'trying to' put across here.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm How is Galileo’s Principle of Relativity preserved?
Just maybe because it holds more truth than another one? We will just have to WAIT, and SEE, correct?

Or, do you ALREADY KNOW the answers?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Well, the speed of light is as fast as anything can go.
This is just an assumption, and NOT YET an actual PROVEN fact.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm And just as the light in the light clock is going as fast as it can in the same direction as the spaceship, every atom in your body is doing the same, so there’s no interaction between the atoms and molecules in your body - no biological processes, no mental processes - your body doesn’t age and your brain doesn’t think. There’s no image of you in the mirror, and you don’t even know it. For you time stops.
But this is a different reason than the one you supplied last time. Then you said, something like; physical things just fall into a mush when receiving the speed of light because there is no light interaction and because there is no interaction between the atoms and molecules.

Here, and I might be reading you wrong, you are saying; every 'thing' just "stays the same", and does not actually "fall into a mush", because "time has just stopped", for 'you'.

If this is correct, then how can the atoms and molecules of the body stay the same, not age, et cetera if the atoms and molecules could not even, supposedly, be traveling at that speed and thus keeping up with each other?

Also, you used the words "for you" here, which, to me, totally and absolutely contradicts what you have said above about HOW it is the "other" who observes and sees the light clock slowing down as it accelerates and NOT the 'one', (the 'for you'), who is with the clock.

But, you might be able to explain WHY there is this, apparent, contradiction here?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm What about for everyone else though? Well, time passes for them at a rate that is dependent on how fast they are moving compared to the speed of light. But remember, however fast you are moving, it feels the same as if you were standing still.
So, the silly and illogical phrase "time passes" would be, or would feel, the same no matter how fast you are moving compared to, or 'relative' to, the speed of light, correct?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Stones fall at your feet and the pulse of light in your light clock bounces straight up and down. It is everyone else who, relative to you, is moving. And that has an apparently paradoxical consequence.
At least you used the right words here, they are; 'apparent' and 'consequence'.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Suppose when you dropped a stone as I watched from the platform that I too had dropped a stone. Now we intuitively feel that it is you on the train that is moving,
Not ALL of 'us', so call, "intuitively feel" this. 'We' only "intuitively feel" this if we are NOT looking and NOT seeing things, how they REALLY ARE.

The use of the words like; " 'intuitively feel' 'the "other" on the train that 'IS' moving' ", and, the use of words like; " It is everyone else who, relative to you, 'IS' moving, " only distorts what ACTUALLY happens and occurs.

Also, it is this type of language and usage of words, which distorts what thee Truth actually IS.

But I do FULLY understand WHY this type of language and usage of words gets used. One, obviously, has to 'try' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support their own ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm but imagine your train is heading off into the sunset. So relative to me stuck on the platform, you are moving due west. But as you rattle along, the Sun is still going down and that’s because the Earth is spinning eastwards faster than you are moving westwards, so relative to the Sun, you are moving eastwards. Just not quite as fast as me.
Now this is the kind of talk from which thee Truth of things WILL reveal Itself.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Back in the railway station, how we are moving relative to the sun has no effect on how we see each other’s stone falling, we both see the other’s stone move horizontally by exactly the same amount.
Do we REALLY?

WHEN and WHERE have you ACTUALLY noticed and/or observed this phenomena to occur?

Also, is what is noticed and observed to occur what ALWAYS does ACTUALLY occur?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm And the same is true about our light clocks, we both see each others pulse of light move horizontally, and therefore, weirdly, we both see each others clock tick more slowly.
Does what you observe and see mean that 'it' actually 'HAS TO HAPPEN'?

I think the Truthful answer to this question, SHOWS and REVEALS WHY this, what is essentially just a 'thought experiment', which was made up to prove that what was theorized to occur does actually occur, is actually NOT some actual thing to use as evidence NOR proof for any particular thing.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm If we never get to compare our clocks, we would never know who had been travelling the faster;
We can.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm and if the train carries on in a straight line, it will never get back to the station.
It could.

But, you might say, if the train keeps heading west, it will eventually get back to where it started. True, but it will have gone around the world. In other words, not in a straight line[/quote]

If you want to argue this way, then we could say it went in a straight line in one direction, but not in another direction. And, if you want to argue this way, then we could say that absolutely NOTHING that travels on earth travels in a straight line, and so there would NEVER be any reason to say ANY thing travels in a straight line, on earth. Which, if we were going to 'argue this way', by the way, then this brings us back to HOW stones do NOT actually "fall vertically".
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So Imagine that your train is going round in a circle, in the middle of which is me with my light clock. In that case you would see my pulse of light bounce straight up and down. I on the other hand would still see your pulse of light move horizontally, so I would see your clock ticking slower than my clock, which means you would see my clock tick faster than yours.
Is this an ACTUAL PROVEN FACT, with ACTUAL observes who noticed and observed this phenomena? Or, is this just what is presumed to occur, by some people?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm But going round in circles isn’t the smooth motion of special relativity, so no rules are broken; and in fact experiments confirm that time does slow down the faster you are going, although to be clear, we should remember that strictly speaking, clocks tick fewer times the faster they are going.
But experiments have NOT confirmed this at all.

In fact, as I have suggested to you a number of times ALREADY, if you EVER want to discuss this matter, then we can.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm In 1971, scientists Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating, conducted a simple demonstration. They got some atomic clocks, put them on a commercial jet liner, and flew them round the world twice. Once heading eastwards and once westwards. When they compared their clocks with a clock that stayed on the ground, they showed different times. When the clocks flew eastwards, they lost time compared to the clock on the ground, whereas when they flew westwards they gained time. Which sounds crazy, but it’s the same effect as when you are riding into the sunset.
WHY does it sound crazy, to you?

As I have ALREADY noticed AND observed, what 'time' is in relation to EXACTLY, then this sounds PERFECT, and makes PERFECT SENSE.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm In the Hafele-Keating experiment, when the clocks flew westwards, they were still moving east relative to the sun, but not as much as the clock on the ground, and even less compared to when the clocks flew eastwards. So rather than thinking that the clocks flying westwards gained time and those flying east lost time, it’s slightly less mind bending to think that compared to when the clocks flew westwards the clock on the ground lost time, and that when they flew eastwards, they lost even more time.
And what is even far easier and simpler to grasp is that 'time', itself, does NEITHER.

As you are SHOWING and REVEALING more here now, which is just what I was leading up to a while age now when I was, once again, laughed at and ridiculed, is; What 'you', human beings, refer to as 'time' is ALWAYS in relation to, or 'relative' to, some thing else. And, what that 'some thing else' is EXACTLY should be becoming far more CLEARER.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So it has been shown that clocks really do slow down the faster they are moving.
ONCE AGAIN, this has NOT been SHOWN at all, well to some of us, anyway.

ONCE AGAIN, EVERY thing is relative to the observer, and where they are. Which EXPLAINS WHY this apparent phenomena occurs. That is; If anyone is Truly interested in looking into this and discovering WHY.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm So do all the processes that give rise to life and consciousness which, somewhat metaphorically, we can describe as time slowing down.
All the process that give, so called, "rise to life and consciousness" does depends on what you mean by 'life' and 'consciousness'? But, which anyway, just fundamentally comes down to 'cause and effect' anyway.

When you discover and/or learn, and understand, what 'time' actually IS, then you will understand HOW 'time', itself, can NOT and does NOT slow down, and, WHY 'time' can NOT and does NOT slow down.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Why then did it take until 1971 for someone to prove it? Well, even at 500mph, about the speed of a commercial jet, the effect is tiny. Think about that stone falling. Suppose it falls for half a second. At 500mph in half a second the plane will have flown a little over a hundred metres, so to someone watching from outside the plane, the diagonal path of the falling stone is very clear.
Is it REALLY?

If yes, then how do you KNOW this?

Because, from my perspective, and 'relative' point of view, the 'actual' path of the stone is VERY CLEAR.

For your claim here to even be remotely true a plane made out of glass, or some thing see through, would need to be made first, and an actual experiment to have been set up, and then for that experiment to have actually occurred. As of when this is being written I am yet unaware of any such plane, and experiment.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm However, in that same half a second, the light pulse will have travelled 93 thousand miles, so instead of there being one very obviously diagonal path, as for the stone, the beam of light will have bounced up and down hundreds of millions of times, so the amount the plane has moved forward for each bounce is a fraction of a millimetre; so the extra distance the pulse of light has to travel is tiny, hence the slowing of the clock is tiny.
LOL To me, this is all just the 'trying' of ANY thing to back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, which is 'time stops, at the speed of light'.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Despite flying all the way round the world, the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment were measured in nanoseconds, billionths of a second. But when you have clocks which are accurate to within a second every few hundred million years, that’s not a problem.
The only, so called, 'problem' here is; What did they set up this experiment for, exactly?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm One of the things that is most often misunderstood about Special Relativity is that it is about what you see, rather than what really is the case.
And LOL all you have done here is reinforce that what you are talking about is 'what you see' and NOT at all about 'what REALLY IS the case'.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:33 pm Remember that no one can tell how things are actually moving, all that anyone can say is how much something is moving relative to a point of their choosing. And while it is only relative to that point that we can tell that time is moving faster or slower, it is a demonstrable fact that time really is affected by speed. Just as Einstein predicted
LOL

What is 'it', exactly, which 'you', "uwot", and "einstein" say 'time' is?

And,

What are the properties of 'time', exactly, which you allege can be demonstrably proven to be affected by speed?

Until you CLARIFY and EXPLAIN these things, then what you are saying here is obviously you just expressing 'that' what you BELIEVE is true.
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

AlexW wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:06 amNow, if everything were really only an "interference pattern" with "solid material" only being a certain focussed whirlpool of overlapping waves/frequencies, then what exactly are we measuring when an object moves from A to B?
Aren't we only measuring a ghost-like apparition? Something that seems to be there, but – the closer we look – has no solidity at all...
It depends how you feel about it. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, but personally I'm quite happy to treat "a certain focussed whirlpool of overlapping waves/frequencies" as a discrete entity, even though I know that according to the model there is nothing we intuitively think of as 'solid' about it, and even though I know it is just a localised scrunching up of a field, or fields, that permeate the entire universe. Others prefer to emphasise the oneness/ubiquity of the field/fields.
AlexW wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:06 amIt seems to me that all we do is measure the velocity of an object on a TV screen as it moves from A to B, while, in reality, all that actually happens is a shifting of colours on the screen... the maximum velocity that an object can travel, when moving continuously from A to B – covering every single pixel between these distant points – is limited only by the maximum refresh rate of the screen.
Well if you accept that there is a maximum refresh rate then yeah, there is a limit to speed the 'wave of refreshment' could cross the screen. However, if in your model a 'material' particle is some version of a whirlpool or oscillation, then you have to subtract that whirling or oscillating movement from the refreshment rate to give you the maximum speed across the screen of any such particle. It's essentially the point that surreptitious 57 made - if particles could be made to travel at the speed of light, they stop being particles because there can be no movement other than in the direction of travel, and you have turned a particle into a wave.
AlexW wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:06 amThus we find that an object's maximum speed is defined by this maximum refresh rate ... this velocity, in our case, might be the speed of light...
But... what happens if the object doesn't travel in such a continuous fashion? What if it simply appears at A and - in the "next instance" at B?
It would have travelled much faster than light, it would be "nearly" instantaneous...
In a way some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are predicated on that possibility. If an atom ejects an electron, for example, there's an extra bit of whirlpooliness/oscillation outside the confines of the atom. If the universe is a rug, it's a bit like pushing one end of it - the fold could leap up anywhere in the rug, but the likelihood is that it will do so near the end that is being pushed. So yeah, could be.
AlexW wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:06 amNow replace the word "object" with "information" (as objects don't travel, its only "information" - a specific "interference pattern" - that is present or not present...)
Quite honestly, I don't see any difference between information and object. Think of a vinyl record (if you're old enough). The scratch is the information. It's also the music.
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:15 amAll that needs to be done to correct this is just write: The faster you are going, the slower time 'appears' to pass for you. Thus, the reference to 'relativity'.
Not a good start Age. The fact that time does slow down the faster you are going is why the 'Twins Paradox' isn't a paradox.
I'm not going through your entire post, so if there's a couple of points you particularly want me to address, pick them out.
Post Reply